International Courts in the Hague: A Comparison Between the ICTY and the ICC and Their Respective Contributions to the Rule of International Law from the Perspective of Victims of International Crimes
International Courts in the Hague: A Comparison Between the ICTY and the ICC and Their Respective Contributions to the Rule of International Law from the Perspective of Victims of International Crimes

Summary/Abstract: The ICTY is a model directing to ad hoc approach to solving crime problems in war combat. The shortcomings of this system are : an open issue whether all circumstances, necessary for founding the ad hoc tribunal, will always coincide, enormous impact of permanent members of the UN Security Council, which would thereby attain their own political goals, while international crimes, committed under their patronage or approval, would remain beyond reach of any righteous but not feigned punishments. The ICC, founded on the basis of Roman Stat, is immune to the objections directed to the Tribunal for ex Yugoslavia. But, the project of the permanent international and universal criminal court becomes a victim of own ambition. The question of such project realization has been posed. Lasting assignment of competences, which was the exclusive right of SB so far, was seen by the most powerful States as the impeachment of their own interests. Without the most powerful countries in military sense of the word, taking part directly or indirectly in most military operations, we cannot speak about reaching a universal international criminal judiciary system. The shortcomings of ICTY result just from its imposed nature, i.e. the fact that it founded the SB as a coercive measure. The ICC, founded on the basis of Roman Stat, experienced difficulties in practice just because just because we have with it a voluntary transfer of sovereignty and not an imposed jurisdiction.. The shortcomings of one and difficulties of the other court result from defects and problems encountered by the international law.

• Details
• Contents